Main navigation

Blog

The video of Scott Gordon’s presentation from the 2017 FairMormon Conference is now available for free viewing. The transcript can be read here. You can purchase access to the rest of the conference videos here.

Scott GordonScott Gordon is president of FairMormon and as such has been a writer of several articles and a speaker at firesides. He has a master’s degree in Business Administration from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s in Organizational Communication. He has held many Church callings, including Bishop, and currently serves as the Ward Mission Leader. He is married to Sheri Farnsworth Gordon and has five children.

This is a guest post from Debra Oaks Coe, who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Utah Commission for LGBT Suicide Awareness and Prevention and Lead of the Anti-Discrimination Committee for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

“What is changing – and what needs to change – is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully where they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere”. [1] Elder Dallin H. Oaks

The unprecedented rise in Utah’s youth suicide rate over the past decade has developed into an uncertain political issue as its underlying causes have been debated. Some have questioned what possible influence the Church has had, particularly in regards to suicides among individuals who are LGBT. While a no conclusive or singular cause has yet been identified, the Church has long and repeatedly urged Latter-day Saints to be more mindful, considerate, and inclusive as part of needed change.

Citing misunderstanding—including among Church members—of the Church’s positions on various issues related to same-sex attraction, Elder Oaks authored an Ensign article on the topic in 1995. In it, he quoted a letter he had received expressing serious concern that too often we talk about gay and lesbian members with “a real lack of the pure love of Christ” which “creates more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth.” The author asks for more sensitivity saying this “would surely help avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families.” [2]

“These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communication… Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding… All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness “to bear one another’s burdens” (Mosiah 18:8) ‘and so fulfil the law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2).”[3]

Over the next several years, the Church and its leaders made many statements affirming that their stand on traditional marriage should never, ever be used to justify unkindness or persecution toward the LGBT community or individuals. After confirmed reports from different parts of the US of violent acts along with suicides related to individuals being gay, the church issued a very clear statement in October 2010.

“We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

…Our parents, young adults, teens and children should… of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment, to “Love One Another.” [4]

The Church began an extended effort to better understand the challenges members who are gay face, as well as the challenges their families face. It explored how to help members respond better.

In April 2012 General Conference, Elder Oaks delivered a talk titled “Protect the Children” In it, he encouraged members to be more mindful of how their words might adversely impact young people. He specifically mentioned those with same-sex attraction as being particularly vulnerable and their need of loving understanding.

Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development. Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism. With the help of the Lord, we can repent and change and be more loving and helpful to children – our own and those around us.[5]

In December of 2012, the Church published mormonsandgays.org. The new official Church website included interviews with three apostles, including Elder Oaks, Elder Christofferson, and Elder Cook. It encouraged understanding and prominently called for us to “love one another.” This website gave the quote from Elder Oaks, expressing the need for Church members to respond more sensitively and thoughtfully. It encouraged humility and stated that “Latter-day Saints recognize the enormous complexity of the matter. We simply don’t have all the answers.” [6]

On this website, Elder Cook reminded us that as a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate.

. . .as a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. No family who has anybody who has a same-gender issue should exclude them from the family circle. They need to be part of the family circle. . . . We have a plan of salvation. And having children come into our lives is part of Heavenly Father’s plan. But let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach to those and let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender. . . . I feel very strongly about this… It’s a very important principle.[7]

The need for us to love and lift all of God’s children was emphasized by Elder Neil L. Anderson in April 2014 General Conference.

Of special concern to us should be those who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is a whirlwind of enormous velocity. . . . everyone, independent of his or her decisions and beliefs, deserves our kindness and consideration. The Savior taught us to love not only our friends but also those who disagree with us—and even those who repudiate us. He said: “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? …And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?” The Prophet Joseph Smith warned us to “beware of self-righteousness” and to enlarge our hearts toward all men and women until we feel “to take them upon our shoulders.” In the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no place for ridicule, bullying, or bigotry.[8]

While speaking at a BYU devotional in September 2015, Elder Rasband encouraged the student body to reach out to all people just as the Savior did. He specifically talked about the need to reach out to those that are LGBT. Several days later he posted the following on his Facebook page:

Some of you wrote of the conflict that you’ve felt in showing #Fairness4All, especially with individuals who see life differently from you. You expressed worry that such friendships might betray your beliefs. I want to reiterate that the Savior is the perfect example of reaching out in love and support. His interest in others was always motivated by a pure love for them. Sometimes we approach relationships with the intent to change the other person. We follow our Savior best when we base our relationships on principles of love.[9]Emphasis added

In the BYU devotional Elder Rasband testified that as we reach out to others we would feel an increase in the Savior’s love for all people and that this powerful love would open doors and create meaningful friendships to be cherished throughout our lives. [10] It is important as disciples of Christ, to have a wide variety of friends.

In October 2016, the Church released an updated website now called mormonandgay.lds.org. The updated website continued to emphasize the need for change and members responding more sensitively and thoughtfully. It included a new video helping us understand the need to reach out to those that are marginalized. It reminded us that “the gospel of Jesus Christ does not marginalize people. People marginalize people and we have to fix that. We need to be sensitive.” [11] We need to love others as the Savior loves all of us and follow the example He set during His life on earth. We need to stand up when others speak or act in negative ways.

This new Church website, mormonandgay.lds.org, has a video of Elder Dallin H. Oaks titled “Love and the Law.” In it Elder Oaks states, “As Latter-day Saints, many of us, not all of us, but many of us, are inclined to insist on the law and do so in an unloving way…” In addressing conflict, Elder Oaks said, “The first thing I always suggest is keep loving them; in the end that is something you can always do.” He said that we should not start off our interactions by arguing and he went on to say:

The Savior commanded His followers to “Love one another as I have loved you.” So we look at how He loved us. He sacrificed Himself for us. He was concerned always with the individual. He had a wonderful outreach for people. I think those are all indicators of how we can love one another like He loved us. If we make Him our role model we should always be trying to reach out to include everyone. [12]

The principal causes of Utah’s deeply troubling youth suicide problem are still largely undetermined. This is mostly due to a lack of detailed data, which the Utah Department of Health is working to overcome.

The Church has published articles related to suicide prevention and published a new website on the topic. It continues to urge its members to be compassionate and inclusive of others and to be especially mindful of our youth, including LGBT people.

In April 2016, President Uchtdorf reminded us that condemning, ridiculing and shaming are wrong.

During the Savior’s ministry, the religious leaders of His day disapproved of Jesus spending time with people they had labeled “sinners.” Perhaps to them it looked like He was tolerating or even condoning sinful behavior. Perhaps they believed that the best way to help sinners repent was by condemning, ridiculing, and shaming them. . . What matters is that you are His child. And He loves you. He loves His children.[13]

Note that President Uchtdorf put the word “sinners” is in quote marks reminding us that we shouldn’t be labeling others, especially when it affects the way we treat them.

In December 2016, President Uchtdorf said:

To put it simply, having charity and caring for one another is not simply a good idea. It is not simply one more item in a seemingly infinite list of things we ought to consider doing. It is at the core of the gospel—an indispensable, essential, foundational element. Without this transformational work of caring for our fellowmen, the Church is but a facade of the organization God intends for His people. Without charity and compassion we are a mere shadow of who we are meant to be—both as individuals and as a Church…. No matter the outward appearance of our righteousness, if we look the other way when others are suffering, we cannot be justified.[14]

And yet I’m concerned about statements that continue to push the unproven claim that gay youth commit suicide in Utah at rates higher than other states because of Utah’s religious culture. To the best of my knowledge, there is no data on the reasons for suicides, so claiming that there’s something unique about gay youth in Utah is an assertion without evidence.

If it’s true that Mormonism is driving youth suicides in Utah, then we should see a similar suicide rate among youth in other states dominated by religions that are similarly opposed to gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage. But we don’t: The suicide rates for ages 10 to 24 in Georgia (9.18, #33), South Carolina (9.91, #29), West Virginia (8.88, #37), Alabama (9.56, #32), and all other Southern states as well, are all lower than Utah’s rate. Religious acceptance of homosexuality is at least as low in those states as it is in Utah; why the dramatic difference in youth suicide?

And the reverse must also be true: States with broad acceptance of gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage must have lower rates of teenage/young adult suicides than Utah; right? Then why does fairly liberal Colorado (16.69, #5) rank just barely ahead of Utah? And why does South Dakota (25.22, #2) differ so much from North Dakota (7.81, #42), when the two states have nearly identical cultures? And why has Utah seen teen/young adult suicides increase by 66% between 2001 and 2015, but Oregon (+78%) and Washington state (+68%), where gays are supposedly warmly embraced, have had higher rates of increase in youth suicide in the same time period?

And, most telling of all, why has the national suicide rate for teens/young adults gone from 6.95 in 2001 to 9.15 in 2015 (an increase of 32%), when acceptance of the gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage have increased dramatically throughout the United States during the same period? Wouldn’t we expect to see a decrease in the nationwide suicide rate of youths, including gay youths?

The problem here is that suicide is complex, and rarely boils down to a single issue. The narrative that Utah culture and religion are a significant cause of teen suicides in the state isn’t backed up by the evidence, does a disservice to the people of the State of Utah, and does a disservice to people of faith.

Are you or someone you know struggling with thoughts of suicide? Call 800-273-8255 or text “HELP” to 741-741 to get help immediately.

[Another FairMormon member, Rene Krywult, has contributed a second review of this book.]

“The goal with the Introduction to the Book of Abraham is to make reliable information about the Book of Abraham accessible to the general reader.” With these words, John Gee begins his new book.

And it is a high goal the well-known Egyptologist, professor of Egyptology at Brigham Young University and the William (Bill) Gay Research Chair, author of over a hundred academic papers on Egyptology and ancient scripture, and researcher of the Book of Abraham for more than 25 years, sets for himself. How to do justice to a topic that is specialized enough that only a few experts in the world can speak about it with authority, and how to do it in a language that the interested lay man can understand? How to do it, with a topic that has been controversially debated for the last 105 years, often with far more zeal than knowledge? How to do it, when there is so very much to discuss and to know on one hand, and yet the “common knowledge” is almost nonexistent?

So, the good thing here: This is an introduction. Gee is not only an expert on the Egyptian but also masters the English language. The book is very easy to read. Nevertheless, there is much information to impart, and Gee does so by introducing us to the topics, all with the well researched and documented footnotes one expect from a scholar of such caliber, only to follow up with an extensive “Further Reading” section at the end of each chapter, a bibliography with explanations. This way, he who wants to know more knows what books to buy and what articles to read.

Publisher: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book
Author: John Gee
Number of Pages: 197
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN-13: 978-1-9443-9406-6
Price: $19.99Click to purchase the book.

The Book of Abraham is my favorite book of scripture. Mostly it is because of chapter 3, which contains information that is not found anywhere else in LDS scripture. I also remember discovering the facsimiles as a child and thinking that they were really neat. Unfortunately, the Book of Abraham has also become a favorite for critics to attack, as it is the only book of scripture that Joseph Smith translated for which there appears to be any extant source material, and that material does not seem to match what is in the Book of Abraham. But it’s really much more complicated than that.

This book explains what is currently known about the Book of Abraham and its associated artifacts and documents, and why the critics are wrong. It is written by John Gee, who is a professor of Egyptology at BYU. He got his PhD in Egyptology at Yale and has written many research publications for professional journals as well as writing for LDS audiences. The book is written to be understandable by any reader (although an LDS background is very helpful) in a straightforward manner that actually makes for a fairly quick read.

The book contains 17 chapters, most of them fairly short, that build on each other. At the end is a series of questions and answers that basically provides a summary of the book. It also has photos of the extant papyri, maps, charts, diagrams, and other helpful or interesting illustrations scattered throughout. At the end of most chapters is a list of “Further Reading” with notes about each item. Unfortunately, there are not many footnotes in the book; they only exist to provide sources for quotes. So you have to refer to the notes in the “Further Reading” section to deduce where some of the information came from. This did lead me to find one inconsistency – on page 97, it says “The Book of Abraham begins much like other autobiographies from Abraham’s time and place.” However, on page 103 in “Further Reading,” there is an entry that says, “This essay is a comparison of the Book of Abraham with the only other autobiographical inscription to survive from the approximate time and place of Abraham.”

After the introduction, the book begins with a historical overview which explains how Joseph Smith got the papyri and then what happened to them after his death, with the church finally receiving surviving fragments in 1967 (most of what Joseph had in his possession ended up burning in the Chicago Fire of 1871). “To the disappointment of many, although these remaining fragments contained the illustration that served as the basis for Facsimile 1, they were not the portion of the papyri that contained the text of the Book of Abraham” (page 9).
The next chapter is about the translation. Some have thought that Joseph may have used a seer stone (see my review of Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones), but Gee says that “Some thirdhand accounts claim he did, but those accounts do not come from anyone who actually observed the translation” and that “By the time that Joseph finished translating the Book of Mormon in 1829, he no longer needed to use the Urim and Thummim to receive revelation” (page 20.) What is known is that much more was translated than what ended up being published (the rest has been lost), and that it was done without using a dictionary or grammar as a conventional translation normally would. It does appear that W. W. Phelps attempted to compile an Egyptian grammar after the translation, but the extent of Joseph’s involvement in that is unknown. [Read more…] about Book Review: An Introduction to the Book of Abraham

Note – From the mid-1840s until 1978 people of African descent were generally not allowed to have the priesthood or attend the temple in the LDS Church. (Attending the temple is different from going to Church in the LDS faith.) This is in spite of prior practices and temple rules that said they could. Since the primary difference between people with African roots and people with northern European roots is skin color, what if the situation were reversed? This post tries to use humor to address this serious issue. This should not be taken as evidence that the author considers anything about the topic of racism or priesthood to be less than serious. This role reversal is designed to make us think about the issue in a different light.

I was born a redhead. Yes, I’ve “blonded” out a bit as I’ve aged, but both of my daughters were born with deep red hair. So, I know all about red heads. Sometimes we are also known as “gingers.”

While the red hair can attract attention, it isn’t the red hair that is the issue for me. It is the redheads’ skin color. Let me explain.

People with red hair have very fair skin coloring. We have almost no melanin in our skin. Melanin is the substance that makes skin darker. I joke with my kids that our skin is so transparent that we can see the blood rushing beneath it. I often look with jealously at my Hispanic or black friends who have such beautiful, uniform skin tones. My skin is reddish and blotchy with a few dots called freckles. In high school I was constantly asked, “Are you blushing?” “No, I just walked up a few stairs, thank you very much.”

A redhead’s skin is very sensitive to sunlight. You may notice if you go walking with a redhead, they sometimes seem to jump from shadow to shadow. We all avoid sunlight. When we read a Twilight novel, we understand how the vampires feel—the sun is not our friend! I often take out my SPF 50 sunscreen and slather it on before I will go out into the sun. It is supposed to allow me to stay in the sun 50 times longer than usual. For me – let’s see now — 50 times what I can usually stay in the sun for without getting a sunburn…that would be……ummm, doing the math here…carry the one…….Hmmm……about 7 and a half minutes before I start to burn.

“But, you are just ‘white’!” you may say. No, my wife is white. Her family comes from Norway and Sweden. She is white. Blindingly white. Her skin looks different than mine. She is white with white and yellow undertones. My ‘white’ is blotchy reddish-white, just like most other redheads. She can go out in the sun. She can lie on the beach. She can go swimming. If I go out in the sun, I will burn. If I lie on the beach, I will burn. If I go swimming, I will burn. I tell my students my goal in life is to walk from my office to my car without getting a sunburn.

That said, it isn’t all bad having redhead skin. My skin tone is GREAT for collecting vitamin D in a fogbank. And when I visit Scotland, I have to wear my coat anyway – so it’s not a liability.

My daughter teaches in first grade. She has very red hair. One of her students, whose family came from Africa, was having difficulties with one teacher. We will call this six-year-old student Jamal (not his real name). When asked about it, he said, “She just don’t like me. She’s white and white people don’t like black people like me.” My daughter responded, “That’s not true, Jamal. I’m white and I like you.” “No, Miss Gordon. You’re not white,” responded Jamal. “You’re PINK!” Even a six-year-old can see the difference.

The difference between people we label as “black” and people like me is how much melanin is in our skin. The more melanin, the darker the skin tone. I don’t have very much melanin, so that is why I am the color I am. Some of you may say, “But there are other differences besides skin color!” Yeah, that’s true – my hair is red and theirs is black. But again, that is simply caused by the amount of melanin. My hair is straight and theirs is curly. True. But, my wife’s hair is very curly, and she has family members whose hair would look right at home on someone of African descent (except that they are blond). As for other traits, you can find a wide variety of looks throughout both the white and black communities. In other words, there is as much diversity within each community as there is between the two communities.

So, here’s a thought exercise: What would happen if The Church announced that there was a ban on redheads having the priesthood?

What if it was melanin-deficient people who couldn’t get the priesthood, while melanin-rich people could? What if Gingers went thought a period of slavery because of our skin color? What if we were discriminated against during the 1950s and not allowed to eat in certain places, get certain jobs, use certain bathrooms, or ride in a taxi with someone who had more melanin then we do?

I can just image the conversations in the ward.

“Oh look, a red-haired girl just moved into the ward. Finally, someone you can date!”

“Can you help me with my Northern European History class? You know all that stuff, right?”

“Can I touch your hair? I’ve never seen red hair before. Does it feel different?”

“I was doing family history work last week and was horrified to find out that some red-haired genes got in there somehow. Old great-grandad or grandma must have been cavorting with the field help!”

Yeah, those would be terrible conversations. And yet, I have heard all of those comments from church members.

“But, it isn’t skin color. It’s lineage!” you cry. So let’s talk about lineage a bit. There are those who believe there is a tie between redheads and Neanderthals.[1] Neanderthals are in the redhead’s linage. Apparently, Neanderthals had red hair, and some Neanderthal genes are found in northern Europeans. They know there was interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.[2] They just are not sure if the red hair trait came from the Neanderthal, or if it developed independently. If Neanderthal man had red hair along with the red-hair skin tones, it would explain one of the great scientific mysteries of why the Neanderthals died out: obviously, the sun came out!

More evidence of having a different lineage is studies that show “people with red hair need larger doses of anesthesia and are often resistant to local pain blockers.”[3] My first response to this information is “Well, duh! We are used to pain because we walk around sunburned all the time.” But, it turns out it has more to do with our genes.[4] Just ask any operating room nurse or OB nurse how comfortable they feel when a redhead comes in. I have been told by several nurses that if there is going to be a problem, it will probably be with the redhead. So, we are a bit different from other people. Whether this comes from our homegrown genes, or from Neanderthal genes, it certainly shows that our lineage might be different from others—we are demonstrably different than other people. If something is to be restricted based on lineage, it could just as easily be restricted against us redheads.

It’s important to think about what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. I often hear the refrain, “The Levites were the only ones who had the priesthood at the time of Jesus. So that was a priesthood restriction just like the blacks being restricted in modern times.”

That situation is totally different. With the Levites, only one group held the priesthood and nobody else did. With the modern priesthood restriction, everybody had the priesthood except for one group.

Think of it this way. Everyone understands that in sports there needs to be a team captain to communicate effectively. But, that is totally different than everyone being allowed to play the game except for one player who is forced to sit on the bench. Our brothers and sisters of African descent were forced to sit on the bench. How would that make you feel?

“But, the priesthood ban was a long time ago. What do you want me to do about it?”

Secondly, if someone asks if Mormon were racists, the correct answer – the only possible answer — is yes. There is no need to get defensive about it. Of course they were! By modern standards, everyone who came through that period would be considered racist today. It is, however, unfair to judge them harshly for their views. It was what they were taught. It was the norm. They did the best they could. Using modern standards, even Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist by many. Additionally, racism doesn’t only exist in the United States. It is a world-wide issue of us vs. them. Skin color has simply been used as an easy identifier of “them.”

Racism has always been with us. Our better selves understand that we need to move beyond that. If someone asks if there was racism in the church, simply say “Sure, and we are trying to repent!”

Third, if someone then asks, how could we have had a prophet if we had such a racist policy? Think about this: if you think that prophets don’t work in a world filled with prejudice and racism, you need to go back and reread the Bible and Book of Mormon. Think of the Samaritans, the Lamanites, the people of Nineveh, and the Philistines. God only gives us what we are willing to accept. It is up to us to try to become more like him.

Many members of the Church believe the ban came from God, or at least that God used the ban for a wise purpose. These positions are speculative. No written revelation has been found that explains the priesthood and temple ban. Some quote scriptures to justify the ban, but historically those scriptures were pulled in as explanations after the ban was already in effect.

Why was there the ban? We don’t know. I can make an educated guess, but my guess would be as valid as your guess—and just as speculative.

Instead of guessing and speculating, let’s simply reach out to each other and embrace one another as brothers and sisters—even redheads! Let’s acknowledge that racism exists and has existed even within the Church. Let’s not nit-pick over how much melanin we have in our skin. Does it really matter? Do you differentiate between your blond children your brown-haired children and your red-haired children? Is there a difference between them?

(Letter to Frank Marshall White by Mark Twain dated May 31, 1897. Published in the New York Journal on June 2, 1897)

A meme has been circulating on Facebook claiming

“BELOVED KIRTLAND TEMPLE OF THE REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS (LDS). COMMUNITY OF CHRIST LEADERS ARE IMPOSING A 2 YEAR GAGE [sic] ORDER SO AS NOT TO DISCLOSE THIS EVENT TO ITS MEMBERS.”

This claim pops up from time to time, so we thought that we at FairMormon should do a fact check for you.

The Kirtland Temple is located in Lake County Ohio. A quick review of the Lake County Reorders office records shows no change in the ownership status of the Kirtland Temple.

One of our friends contacted the Community of Christ to see if there was anything in the works. He has a good relationship with the Community of Christ (RLDS) leadership. He talked with some of their highest leaders and found there is nothing whatsoever to this claim. It is simply a rumor.

The Community of Christ is doing an exceptional job of caring for and maintaining the Kirtland Temple. They go out of their way to be welcoming to all faiths including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I visited there just this summer and found their guides to be wonderful and quite helpful.

This claim is FALSE. So please don’t pass it on.

Note: The LDS Church did purchase the printer‘s manuscript of the Book of Mormon for $35 million, but not the temple.

I was sixteen years old when I read the Book of Mormon for the first time. That book ran right over me. The Book of Mormon hit my mind and my heart in a way that no other book ever had before or ever has since. Now, over fifty years later, I have read the Book of Mormon hundreds of times. I am always reading it and always finding additional knowledge and insights.

After I was baptized a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I read the other revelations given to Joseph Smith, including those recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants and also in the Pearl of Great Price. These books spoke and continue to speak to my mind and my heart with great power. In the revelations given to Joseph Smith, and in the Bible, I hear the voice of God, my Heavenly Father, and of my Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

And in these books I have found very soul-satisfying answers to some of the “big questions” of eternity.

Which “big questions”? Well, two to start with. First, what is the universe for? Second, what is humankind’s place in the universe?

On October 3, 2016, the Joseph Smith Papers Project published a volume called Administrative Records: Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844-January 1846 (reviewed and explained here). It is a massive tome of around 800 pages containing information that had never before been published or studied. It contains many insights that help fill in gaps in Mormon history during this period. The Council of Fifty: What the Records Reveal about Mormon History is an introduction to some of those insights, or it can also serve as a summary of them for those that would rather not peruse the vast source material.

This book contains 15 chapters, each of which is a separate paper written by historians (many of which have worked on the Joseph Smith Project) such as Richard Bushman, Richard Turley, Patrick Mason, Gerrit Dirkmaat, Matthew Grow, Matthew Godfrey, Richard Bennett, Jedediah Rogers, and Paul Reeve. Like a sacrament meeting where each speaker is given the same topic, there is some overlap among many of the papers, yet each writer brings their own perspective and expertise. [Read more…] about Book Review: The Council of Fifty: What the Records Reveal about Mormon History

As a brief background, I was born into a well-educated, large, lower middle class Mormon family and was faithfully raised in the church. As I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, many of my good friends were not LDS and I had ample opportunity to interact with individuals from other faith traditions and backgrounds. As a kid, I definitely remember many occasions of feeling God’s love for me, but I mostly just believed because of my parents and because I felt that was what was expected of me. It wasn’t until I was later into my teenage years and preparing to serve a two-year LDS mission that I starting examining myself and my faith. It was at this time that I was exposed to challenging issues in the church. For a time, I questioned not only the truthfulness of the church, but whether or not there really was a God. This was a very difficult time for me, as I felt that everything I had learned my entire life, even my very identity, might be false. However, during all of this, I continued attending church, reading the scriptures, and saying my personal prayers (more fervently than ever before in my life). I just wanted God, in some way, to make himself known to me and to reassure me that I was loved by him.

At first, things started slowly. I often felt I was praying to no one at all, but with continued study, prayer, and self-reflection, I came to accept that despite the concerns I had with the church and some aspects of its history, culture, and the imperfections of its leadership, I knew that overall the church was a good institution doing good things for millions of people around the world. As I continued to pray earnestly, over time I developed my testimony and belief that my Heavenly Parents are real and that they do love me. At this point, I decided to serve a mission (though I had not yet determined for myself whether or not I believed the church to be “True,” I knew either way I would be serving God through serving others).